86 F.

3d 1147

NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished

opinions may be cited only in related cases.
UNITED STATES, Appellee,
v.
Pedro MONTERO, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 95-2328.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 9, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island
Robert D. Oster and Oster & Sawyer on brief for appellant.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran and
Stephanie S. Browne, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
appellee.
D.R.I.
AFFIRMED.
Before Boudin, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Stahl,
Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed defendant's appellate arguments, and, finding no

merit in them, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

Contrary to defendant's first argument, the sentence enhancement appears

entirely proper. The procedural requirements of 21 U.S.C. 851 were satisfied,
and defendant did nothing to dispute the existence or validity of his prior felony
drug conviction. Although the district court expressed some initial uncertainty
about the government's motion for enhancement, the court plainly was aware of

defendant's criminal history and sentenced him accordingly.

3

Neither the law nor the facts support defendant's other argument that the
government should have accepted his offer of assistance and that his sentence
should have been reduced. Nothing in the plea agreement required the
government to accept defendant's offer of assistance or to file a motion
recommending downward departure. Further, defendant made no substantial
allegation of prosecutorial misconduct here, but only suggested that the
government was not interested in his offer. In these circumstances, the
sentencing court had no authority to grant a departure or to review the
government's decision not to file a motion. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S.
181, 185 (1992).

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.